Several readers objected to my post Feral females in the news because they read it as me asserting that girls aged 6-9 naturally tend to compete sexually for boys. This wasn’t what I had in mind. My argument was that 6-9 year old girls were following the lead of older girls and that the older girls are not being driven by the culture but are in fact driving it.

The dominant frame in our culture is that post pubescent girls and women are naturally modest and chaste. The assumption is that if women are indulging in their sexual power, especially young women, there must be some outside force making them do something which goes against their nature. If 6-9 year old girls are following suit, then this is seen as further proof that women across the board are being pressured into acting in ways they don’t want to.

When young women start dressing immodestly the assumption is that they don’t really want to do this, but are being forced to do it. The poor girls must be being sexualized by those dirty nasty boys and perverted men. Boys and men must be driving the culture to cause young women to want to indulge in the power of their sexuality. The young women who dress and/or act like tramps are poor victims, too innocent to understand what is happening to them. They must suffer from a lack of self esteem and are in desperate need of more moxie so they can avoid becoming exploited in this way. If they only were able to be true to themselves they would immediately switch to modest clothing and start seeking out the husband they will stay with for life, because that is the true nature of women’s sexuality.

This is pure nonsense. Both men and women have sexual impulses which need to be directed, constrained, and channelled if we want to have a moral and functional family structure and society. But feminists are very open that they despise any restrictions on girls and women, especially when it comes to them exercising power. The power young women have in spades is sexual power, but it turns out to be more difficult to effectively exercise than feminists imagine. Nevertheless, feminists have managed to remove the restrictions on female sexual behavior and have been more successful than anyone could have predicted. Even Traditional Conservatives now see the word slut as an insult to all women.

This foolishness is so pervasive that few can even identify it. It is one of those ideas which entered the popular understanding without much real discussion. Otherwise sane parents assume their daughters don’t have a sexual nature which needs to be curbed, only self esteem which needs to be reaffirmed and evil boys which need to be kept at bay. If a young woman sets out on her preferred path of promiscuity, nearly everyone mistakes it for her somehow being frustrated in her search for lifelong marriage.

Fortunately this cultural insanity only applies to female sexuality and not male sexuality. Otherwise we would have fathers finding their son’s illicit cache of Playboy magazines and lecturing him with:

Son, I know your friends are all pressuring you to look at pictures of beautiful naked women and that you are just trying to fit in. I was forced to do so at your age too, and it was terrible. The thing is, the playmate doesn’t know how to cherish your heart. We need to work on your self esteem and make you less self disciplined, more true to yourself, and your desire to look at this will go away.

184 Responses to If we were as foolish about male sexuality as we are about female sexuality.

Mary Quant, the designer of the mini skirt: “It was the girls on the King’s Road who invented the mini. I was making easy, youthful, simple clothes, in which you could move, in which you could run and jump and we would make them the length the customer wanted. I wore them very short and the customers would say, ‘Shorter, shorter.'”
So here we have an adult women designing sexier clothes for adolescent girls at the girls’ request. Which is, after all, a man’s fault (?)
Quant is also “credited” with popularizing “hot pants” (which I must admit, that even as a confirmed heterosexual male, I generally find repulsive, but perhaps that is due to the “expanding” nature of the female populace in this nation). Once again, a woman designing “sexier” clothes for younger women. Which is, of course, the man’s fault.
Speaking of her fashions, Ms. Quant also said, “Am I the only woman who has ever wanted to go to bed with a man in the afternoon? Any law-abiding female, it used to be thought, waits until dark. Well, there are lots of girls who do not want to wait. Mini-clothes are symbolic of them.”
This is, of course, the man’s fault.
By the way, as I understand, 50 Shades of Grey was written by a woman for women (FUBU?). This is, of course, the man’s fault.
And of course, if for some reason it’s not a man’s fault, it should be, and that’s enough.
Okay, will Shelia Gregoire like me now?
Over to you, GBFGM

Blaming women’s actions on external forces is convenient for a beta boy daddy who refuses to believehis daughter is getting gangbanged at college. And the beta boy husband who has to live with the fact his ‘wife’ was spread by every bartender in the city.

Conspiracy theories and magical thinking are comforting for those too mentally weak to believe their ‘beloved’ might just be a shameless whore who is using you, your daughter too.

Son, I know your friends are all pressuring you to look at pictures of beautiful naked women and that you are just trying to fit in. I was forced to do so at your age too, and it was terrible. The thing is, the playmate doesn’t know how to cherish your heart. We need to work on your self esteem and make you less self disciplined, more true to yourself, and your desire to look at this will go away.

“My argument was that 6-9 year old girls were following the lead of older girls and that the older girls are not being driven by the culture but are in fact driving it.”

This point did not come across clearly in your writing. Divorced from media, do you think these older girls would drive that? Observing family members and others I know who expose themselves do daily doses of MSM, they’re decisions are all informed, to one degree or another, by media’s content.

Divorced from media, do you think these older girls would drive that? Observing family members and others I know who expose themselves do daily doses of MSM, they’re decisions are all informed, to one degree or another, by media’s content.

You are assuming that the household itself isn’t functioning as a constraint and has a purely neutral culture. That inside the household the girls are free to run wild, and that this leads them to naturally become good. This is not uncommon, and even Glenn Stanton advises parents of girls that all they need to do is protect girls from the bad culture and their natural goodness will shine through (unlike boys). What the culture is teaching young women is that they don’t need to follow the constraints of their parents and a bygone household. The culture absolutely has an impact, but you are misunderstanding the nature of it as well as what is driving the culture.

“Otherwise sane parents assume their daughters don’t have a sexual nature which needs to be curbed, only self esteem which needs to be reaffirmed and evil boys which need to be kept at bay. If a young woman sets out on her preferred path of promiscuity, nearly everyone mistakes it for her somehow being frustrated in her search for lifelong marriage.”

This. THIS RIGHT HERE.

Too many parents believe their daughters don’t have a sexual nature. They will grow up on their own, and innately develop into good young women who are ready for marriage.

No.

Mother nature hands nearly every 16 year old girl the sexual marketplace equivalent of a nuclear football. In her hands she holds the power to destroy her life, a young man’s life, her parents’ lives, her children’s lives, and the life of her future husband. The very beautiful girls soon figure out they can use their sexuality to get nearly whatever they want: Attention. Entertainment. Meals. Expensive gifts. The more enterprising of these young women are now engaging in a practice called “rinsing” : they use wealthy men for any expensive items they want; often without so much as meeting the men in person.

From good looking men, they can get sex. Any girl a 4 or above in attractiveness has the privilege of knowing that if she wants sex that night, she WILL be able to get it.

Girls who aren’t restrained or who don’t learn restraint soon learn they can do whatever they want whenever and wherever they want, and no one calls them on it, because of their gender. They use the boys, and the top 15 or 20% of boys use them.

Hey Dalrock, here’s another “women’s sin is all men’s fault” alert: the latest episode of The Boundless Show apparently features a discussion of a book called Date Your Wife by Justin Buzzard. One of the commenters found a review by Tim Challies. According to Challies, apparently Buzzard blames all problems in marriages on men, and even echoes Boundless writer James Eldrige’s idea that “changing men’s hearts and lives is the most effective way to shot block our culture’s high divorce rate.” Writes Challies:

The book is fueled by one core conviction: If you want to change a marriage, change the man. Looking first at the sexual relationship and then widening the scope to all of marriage Buzzard says this: “Your wife isn’t the problem. You’re the problem. I’m the problem. Men are the problem. If you want to change a marriage, change the man. If you want to change your marriage, you must first see that you are the main problem in your marriage.” He goes on: “You are the husband. You are the man. And God has given the man the ability to be the best thing or the worst thing that ever happened to a marriage. Before you can be the best thing that ever happened to your marriage, you need to see that you have always been the worst thing that happened to your marriage.”

I agree that young women are not acting/dressing provocatively because they are being misled into doing so by men. And I’m with you on women having a propensity for sexual sin just as men do. What I’m still uncertain about is this:

The assumption is that if women are indulging in their sexual power, especially young women, there must be some outside force making them do something which goes against their nature. If 6-9 year old girls are following suit, then this is seen as further proof that women across the board are being pressured into acting in ways they don’t want to.

I think you don’t agree with that, right dalrock? And I don’t either, BUT…are we absolutely certain that girls/women are behaving this way because of they are sexually depraved? Maybe that is so, but I just wonder if it isn’t more about rebelliousness than sexuality. Women are the gender that is to be in subjection, right? Perhaps it is that our natural bent is more toward rebellion than hyper-sexuality, and it just happens that rebelling against decent sexual mores is the currently preferred method of most women for expressing an unwillingness to obey/submit.

The reason why I think this is possible is because you have a decent-sized segment of the female population that doesn’t act this way. It’s not necessarily because we’re more moral, it’s just that we have either found other ways of behaving rebelliously or we’ve actually purposed in our hearts to obey God’s Word and submit to the authority in our lives.

Recently on the Spearhead there was a post that linked to an absolutely horrendous article on the Good Men Project’s website entitled “Feminists s*ck better d*ck” (Readers can find it here, but be forewarned that the language and subject matter are rated X http://goodmenproject.com/uncategorized/feminists-sk-better-dk/m )

In reading this article, I don’t see a young woman who necessarily enjoys being hyper-sexual, I see a young woman who really gets off on being rebellious and wants to throw her rebelliousness in everyone’s face, as if to say, “Try and make me behave! I dare you.”

I submit my ideas on this with humility and a willingness to hear constructive criticism of my thoughts. FWIW.

We all know that Father’s are terribly important in their daughters lives. I think this is one of the biggest reason’s why. I have read in the manosphere many times that women don’t have a sense of guilt or regret like a man. I don’t know if this is true or not. However, what I do know is that letting down one’s father can be devastating. It comes from the exact same place as striving to please a strong man. Without a strong father (or any father at all) girls have nothing to teach them this guilt or fear of letting someone down. It not the same as letting down one’s mother, even if she did everything right and raised her daughter very well.

are we absolutely certain that girls/women are behaving this way because of they are sexually depraved? Maybe that is so, but I just wonder if it isn’t more about rebelliousness than sexuality. Women are the gender that is to be in subjection, right? Perhaps it is that our natural bent is more toward rebellion than hyper-sexuality, and it just happens that rebelling against decent sexual mores is the currently preferred method of most women for expressing an unwillingness to obey/submit.

I appreciate the spirit with which you ask this question. What I think you are overlooking is the nature of the hamster. The best rationalizations are the ones the woman believes herself. This comment was made by a good woman, a sincere Catholic woman loyally married to the father of her 5 (now plus I believe) children. Yet she can’t acknowledge the nature of her own lust as a young woman. See the original post for more context, as well as this comment (and the discussion which follows). What she was engaging in was love, while the boy was only after one thing…

Edit: See also this comment by the same woman. Again, she is a good and faithful married Catholic mother. But she simply can’t acknowledge what her own motivations were in the past.

Woe to any man with a daughter in the public school system today and with a rebellious mother thrown in. Even his basic instincts are being questioned and mocked relentlessly and he retreats into a mute shell, only to then be called ‘distant’ or uncaring.

Before he made the final decision to live with or marry (and thus procreate), it was up to him to screen the potential mate with piercing value-type questions. Piercing and without emotion.

“You are assuming that the household itself isn’t functioning as a constraint and has a purely neutral culture. That inside the household the girls are free to run wild, and that this leads them to naturally become good. This is not uncommon, and even Glenn Stanton advises parents of girls that all they need to do is protect girls from the bad culture and their natural goodness will shine through (unlike boys). What the culture is teaching young women is that they don’t need to follow the constraints of their parents and a bygone household. The culture absolutely has an impact, but you are misunderstanding the nature of it as well as what is driving the culture.”

“Otherwise sane parents assume their daughters don’t have a sexual nature which needs to be curbed, only self esteem which needs to be reaffirmed and evil boys which need to be kept at bay. If a young woman sets out on her preferred path of promiscuity, nearly everyone mistakes it for her somehow being frustrated in her search for lifelong marriage.”

“Too many parents believe their daughters don’t have a sexual nature. They will grow up on their own, and innately develop into good young women who are ready for marriage. ”

I fit into none of these thought paradigms. Humans are sexual by nature, its neither good nor bad, its simply nature. From puberty on kids will be sexually curious. I don’t know any parents who don’t know this. We all had to go through puberty ourselves in order to become parents so we know what its like. Regardless if you raise your kids in front of TV 18 hours a day or you raise them in an untouched jungle, they will go through puberty and they will become sexual beings. The issue is not whether girls have a sexual nature or not, who even questions that? They are human aren’t they? The original question was about dolls and clothing, and whether or not media and culture informs choices for children and the answer is YES. Hell, media and culture informs the choices of adults, why would kids be any different?

“are we absolutely certain that girls/women are behaving this way because of they are sexually depraved? Maybe that is so, but I just wonder if it isn’t more about rebelliousness than sexuality. Women are the gender that is to be in subjection, right? Perhaps it is that our natural bent is more toward rebellion than hyper-sexuality, and it just happens that rebelling against decent sexual mores is the currently preferred method of most women for expressing an unwillingness to obey/submit.”

Just to add to Dalrock’s comment:

I am not sure I would call it sexual depravity. A more accurate description is lack of sexual restraint. Many girls act out sexually because they learn early on that (1) their sexuality is a source of great power; and (2) at least initially, there are no negative consequences. Girls can use that power to manipulate men and get things they want — money, gifts, entertainment, even marriage. Other girls engage in promiscuous sex for the thrill, the excitement and the drama. Some other girls don’t receive good parenting or positive attention from their parents; and so they wrongly internalize that their only value is in their bodies and what they can offer sexually to a man (men).

One thing I do know is that girls are not in hookup because they are looking for husbands. They are doing it for the sex — either because they can manipulate the men into getting what they want, or for attention, or for fun, or because the sex feels good. It is not because they are looking for boyfriends or LTRs.

Women are naturally born to sleep around, as their biological imperative is to reproduce

A mans biological imperative is to dominate

Its no surprise our society brainwashes men the opposite, stating all men want to do is sleep around

When in fact its the women, who reproduce the hordes of single mother families, even with todays virtual unlimited birth control

Women only gain sexual power, when men dont have game, or masculinity or easily accessible social status

Game & masculinity arent just conquerors of civilisations, theyre stabilisers of society

We’ve seen what just 50 years of no game or masculinity does to a society, traditional societies exploited men to the point of indentured servitude to women & government, but they gave men easily accessible social status, stabilising a vastly male hating society, not too different from todays

Men need to stop shopping at supermarkets, they need to stop toiling for corporate shills, & they need to learn sustainability, self sufficiency, & the security of self defence

Relearn how to hunt, grow & fend for yourself, masculinity & game is built on a mans ability to dominate

Civilisation isnt about servitude or serfdom, its about utilising primacy, exerting our primal nature as an ultimate

Women only gain power over those, without game, masculinity or dominance

Those who dont dominate, are always used & abused

To be dominated correctly you have to be biologically designed to be dominated

If men want to stabilise society & take back their society, they need to stop shopping at supermarkets & corporations & put their wealth & ingenuity back into their families & relatives

Everytime you pay a supermarket, youre paying the very same people who engineered & fund feminism & fascist socialism

All countries are socially engineered, the adverts, propoganda, politics arent a coincidence, when theyre all bought & paid for

Ironically the 1800s had more freedom then we do today, precisely because they had guns & land & the freedom to defend their property, the hallmarks of masculinity

As men no longer have the basic tools of masculinity & dominance, its no surprise they need game & relearn masculinity

Feminism is a lack of masculinity, it is an engineered consequence not an ideology & it is deliberate

Feminism is an artificial construct it does not occur when men are naturally masculine

Too many parents believe their daughters don’t have a sexual nature. They will grow up on their own, and innately develop into good young women who are ready for marriage.

Right. It seems a mystery why so many conservative, evangelical Christian fathers aren't exercising more control over the daughters, insteady happily sending them to coed universities in distant cities with no parental supervision. Until you realize that these fathers themselves have probably bought into Stantonism. They think their daughters are naturally good, and if they just teach them "don't let those nasty boys pressure you," they'll naturally settle into young marriage and housewifehood with a nice beta provider guy.

I’ve had a few uncomfortable conversations with some of my female friends and relatives about my daughter. Uncomfortable for them, I mean. My daughter is only 3, but I’m very much aware that she’s going to be a teenager and a young woman sooner than later, and I’m young enough myself to remember what I was up to at 14, 15, etc. I know what kind of behaviors to look out for, and what kind of rules and enforcements need to be in place to prevent her from making the kind of moronic, unsafe decisions I was making at that age. I grew up with just my mom; I never met my dad, and as a teen, I had no rules or supervision whatsoever. I had fun, sure, but looking back, it’s really amazing that I never knocked anyone up or landed in jail. I was only acting out my baser impulses, the same kinds everyone has, but without any guidance or oversight, I could have easily ruined the rest of my life, or at the very least, had several doors to opportunity permanently closed to me.

When I talk to my mom, or any of my other older female relatives about this time period, they shrug and go, “Well, you were a boy. Ofcourse you were sneaking out, fooling around, getting into all sorts of trouble.” They then, with a completely straight face, suggest that I won’t have to worry about that with my daughter, by virtue of the fact that she’s a girl. Then I have to remind them that there were always plenty of teenage girls willing to sneak out at night and indulge in whatever we were up to, at which point they change the subject.

Surely the point here is that not only did men curtail women’s sexuality but women curtailed younger womens sexuality because most women want what is best for their children, women do not want their daughters to be sluts or their sons to marry sluts.
Sadly the feminists have fucked all that up so now women do not act to curtail younger women and the result is the slut apocalypse we currently have.
In time the old spinsters may act as a lesson to the youth and the balance will be restored, but before then we shall endure years of “where are all the good men”, “man up” and “why can’t I find a husband”.
Yawn……cos you are a ho-bag and no one wants one of them and I’m not going to man up for a cumdumpster is the answer.

One of the main reasons the bankers and BErnankifiers deconstructed th GReat Books and Classics is dat da Great Books and Classics teach of the true nature of womenz lzozozozozozo

eve sins with da spehent serphent lostas cockas serphent and tempts adam to do the same zlozlz

circe transoforms all of odydyesus menz into beta pigz and thretsenz to do the same to odysseus, were he not to stand up to her, like a man. after he does this, she invites him into her bed lzzzozozo

the sirens singing sirens lure men beta puas into the rocks of following der lostas cokas towards perditionzz

the entire war of the ilid is based on the base nature of a owmezn who desters her husband and duty for a pua pussy who in turn is given helen by a goddess as a brinbe for a beuaty conest, shwoin g dat owmnez are bot h fundamantally immoral and vain

now homer also gives us penelope a stay at home mom who fends off all da losstas cockas in odysseus absence

but all dan bankers ndbernankifiers do not olike this. they hate homer as much as they hat e jessuth adn modses and thus the neocon weekly standardth presents tucker max rhyems iwth godlamn sax as the alpha publishing the lies about his height that he is six foot atall all beacsue he tapes butthext in secrtert without the girtlsths to conthent, which to the fiat masters is the highest sign of alpha, while in the history of the great books n classics is it it is cowardly beta zlzozozo, like all the pua and asshats at th spearhead who think they can man up while ignoring tehir true almighty fathers–te great books and classicz lzzloozo

always remember friends
that the thouandsz of porn actresses
and the tensz of thousands of professional womenz
would rather perform porn
and ride da lostas cockas caorsoules lzozo
and serve the bottom line
whether it eb da bottom fiat bernake line
or the bottom butthole line lzozozozo
and get paid for it in fiat dollaz
than mary a man
and honor god
and honor and love her man
and raise his children and cook tehir meals
and stand by her man
through sickness and health
and become a wife granmother mother
instead of a bitter cat lady
for womenz do not know the better path instrisncially
but men do
and thus men gretedted teh worldsz gretaets mythologies stoeires and religilonz
which exalt us above porn and da bdebasement and debauchery
whcih da bankerz and debaucherz revel in
as they profit off womenz
at the expsnese of womenz and cultuez
debauching the uclturez alongsde the currnecy
robbing them of their exlated portenial
as wife grandmotherz motherz
lzoozolzol

I remember when I was taught that gender differences and roles were simply external, cultural forces, shaping the lifes of men and women. That notions seems to have been abandoned in the case of men, but not women. Men are assumed to be naturally deviant in their sexuality while women have their sexual deviancy forced on them. I might buy that in some male-dominant pagan society based on violence and prostitution, but in our current age, where equality is promoted as hard as it is, I cannot.

I wrote an article for my blog in which I talk about men being viewed as primitive apes and women as divine princesses:

I would rather say they are providing a service that’s in demand. But since they are not enough to go around for all (and are not meant to be enough), they can’t and won’t provide full service to all who are interested in some service.

@dalrock
OK, I read the comments by the woman you referred to. Clearly she couldn’t admit to experiencing lust. That wasn’t 100% what I meant – I know women experience lust and act on it. I wasn’t a Christian in college.

But I think the extreme promiscuity and over-the-top sluttiness of dress and behavior that is now being acted out by young women is beyond lust. I really think it’s rebellion. My friends and I experienced and acted upon lust in college, but we could never have spoken like the girl who wrote that article that I linked to. That’s not lust, in my opinion.

The reason this is important to me is because it affects how I will approach this subject with my daughters. Of course I’ll need to warn them about the temptation of lust (I’ve printed deti’s lecture to his daughter for future reference), but even more I want to gently warn them about the temptation to rebel.

“This is one of those things I hated about the sex talks I got in church youth group. It was all “those boys will be pressuring you, watch out!” And I always thought, “but I’m horny, too!”

“It seems a mystery why so many conservative, evangelical Christian fathers aren’t exercising more control over the daughters, insteady happily sending them to coed universities in distant cities with no parental supervision. Until you realize that these fathers themselves have probably bought into Stantonism. They think their daughters are naturally good, and if they just teach them “don’t let those nasty boys pressure you,” they’ll naturally settle into young marriage and housewifehood with a nice beta provider guy.”

So basically this is a Christian thing? Parents thinking their daughters are not sexual beings (non human self manifest demigods) and the equation of being a human being with “badness”?

“This si because a woman’s sexul nature is more debased than a man’s, and also, their is no deeper soul, nor higher logic and reason, to tempter it.”

Nonsense. If that were true there would be no men involved in BDSM. It would have been entirely invented by women and women would be the only willing participants and online viewers.

YBM, it pisses me off because all of them say the same thing, albeit in a different way. It boils down to letting them experiment in school and college or otherwise they will never learn to be a ‘good girl’. Basically it’s this, “No one stopped me rebelling so I sucked many dicks and was fucked every night like a regular whore. But at least I understand that it was ‘rebellion’ and not ‘lust’ on my part…” And of course they weren’t Christian at that point, so it’s all excused and they must still be allowed to marry.

And SSM’s message serves as great encouragement to all young women to indeed ‘experiment’ in college and not be chaste because just like SSM, they can still get married and ‘have it all’.

To me there is absolutely no difference to what SSM did and what all the other women coming on here who promote the idea of delayed marriage and experimentation to ‘discover’ their true selves do. Same bull different day.

When young women start dressing immodestly the assumption is that they don’t really want to do this, but are being forced to do it.

Yes, but I think it is white knight men who assume this. Not feminists. Feminists might be saying this, but they sure as hell don’t believe it. They want to keep the narrative going for their agenda, but women don’t assume they don’t really want to. It very easy. It starts in junior high. The girls that get all the attention from the boys are the ones who are pretty. Of these girls, the ones who flaunt themselves will get even more attention. Girls want boys attention so they wish to flaunt themselves as well. We don’t understand at that age that this kind of male attention is not the good kind because we haven’t been taught that yet, or if we have, we don’t care. It is male attention and we want it.

Now, there are parents who let their daughters dress slutty and those who don’t. Those parents who don’t allow it, most of the daughters still try. I would say those who are the most successful are those where the Father puts his foot firmly down and punishes any indiscretions. It takes a while for a girl to learn that this kind of attention from boys is, while intoxicating, not the kind of attention she wants in the long term. It will not find her a husband, but rather make finding a good one extremely difficult.

“I’ve had a few uncomfortable conversations with some of my female friends and relatives about my daughter. Uncomfortable for them, I mean. My daughter is only 3, but I’m very much aware that she’s going to be a teenager and a young woman sooner than later, and I’m young enough myself to remember what I was up to at 14, 15, etc. I know what kind of behaviors to look out for, and what kind of rules and enforcements need to be in place to prevent her from making the kind of moronic, unsafe decisions I was making at that age. I grew up with just my mom; I never met my dad, and as a teen, I had no rules or supervision whatsoever. I had fun, sure, but looking back, it’s really amazing that I never knocked anyone up or landed in jail. I was only acting out my baser impulses, the same kinds everyone has, but without any guidance or oversight, I could have easily ruined the rest of my life, or at the very least, had several doors to opportunity permanently closed to me.”

Pugs, I hear so many kids today say, “mom is my best friend” or “my parents are my best friends” and vice versa parents saying that about their kids. I know right then and there that they are not raising their children but just hanging out with them. And you see it everywhere. Parents who let their kids make all their own decisions and who are there only as some sort of emotional support system for whatever choices these kids make. Yeah, these kids are having fun alright, and they grow up directionless. Some of these are “un-schoolers”. If you haven’t heard of that, google it. Just another rationalization for shirking parental responsibility.

“When I talk to my mom, or any of my other older female relatives about this time period, they shrug and go, “Well, you were a boy. Ofcourse you were sneaking out, fooling around, getting into all sorts of trouble.” They then, with a completely straight face, suggest that I won’t have to worry about that with my daughter, by virtue of the fact that she’s a girl. Then I have to remind them that there were always plenty of teenage girls willing to sneak out at night and indulge in whatever we were up to, at which point they change the subject.”

Yeah, I’ve heard people say, “boys are easier to raise than girls” and I never got that. Both have the potential to screw up their lives and get into some very serious trouble early on. Boys are no less likely to do that than girls so I fail to see how raising them is somehow easier.

“When young women start dressing immodestly the assumption is that they don’t really want to do this, but are being forced to do it. ”

Its not a question of “force”. Its influence. Cultural and media influence. We would be fools to think that these things do not inform our choices. Advertising works that’s why its not a small million dollar business.

It appears some people are confusing cultural and media influence with sexuality. Nobody needs to be “taught” sexuality. It doesn’t come from the outside but from within the biological organism. At puberty it kicks in. Anyone who is denying this (like Christian pastors?) must have a low IQ or something. Anyone who conflats the natural biological process of sexual maturity with “evil” is also whacked out. But when its a question of clothing, which does in fact come from the outside, that is a different matter. Our clothing choices ARE informed by culture and media.

In reading this article, I don’t see a young woman who necessarily enjoys being hyper-sexual, I see a young woman who really gets off on being rebellious and wants to throw her rebelliousness in everyone’s face, as if to say, “Try and make me behave! I dare you.”

Perhaps it is big shit test, and she is waiting for a dominant man to put her in her place. Anyway you want to look at it, she is abusing the power that she has.

I never said otherwise. Women did not always sleep around like they do today. They still sought attention, though it was tempered by society and fathers. It is no longer tempered. It is encouraged. Hence, where we are today.

You are stuck in the same dynamic that all women are in, and the slave males. It always comes back to blaming the male, in this case, big bad beta daddy. Here’s a tip for you: Fathers have absolutely no control over their own lives, let alone their wives and daughters. To repeat the refrain that it is all beta boy daddys fault his daughter is now an amateur porn superstar on the web when she screwed the football team is a lie. Stop propagating it.

@ybm
Don’t you know that a female undergraduate in the shower with a male undergraduate, are just conserving water or fingerpainting?
At least that’s what I told them when they were real nervous leaving the shower at university.
The girl always went on about “I’m a Catholic, and would NEVER have pre-marital sex”. 🙂

My woman teaches grammar school (K-5); kindergarten through 5th grade. She has over 20 years classroom teaching experience. She says that as girls mature through puberty the become sexual and aggressively court the attention of boys. Puberty in the USA these days for girls is about age 10, that’s 5th grade.

She tells me that rich or poor, hispanic, anglo, chinese or black the behavior is the same. The only differences are the artifacts of their native cultures.

Boys at age 10 could care less about girls. They are just not ready. Puberty for boys happens at age 12 to 14. That means that the girls have no real outlet to express their emerging sexuality within their school environment.

It gets pretty ugly at times. I suppose that may be one of the reasons you do not see male teachers in K-5 schools. At my lady’s school there are a few male teachers. To a a man they refuse 5th grade because the deem the risk af sexual accusation too high. The principal does no press his male teachers to engage 5th grade.

In a very warped way they are correct to say that. As the institution of marriage does not exist in their minds at that moment and ‘sex’ only occurs once the marriage circuit is switched on. Everything before that was a ‘mistake’ or ‘experimenting’

Control, no. Influence . . . a huge amount. A father who allows his daughter to dress like a slut vs. a father who does not has very different influence over his daughter. What’s the point of parents at all if we are not there to teach them. If they have no control, or rather influence then parents are unnecessary past age (about) 9. How did society change so much in the past 100 years if what we teach and influence children was unnecessary, especially parents. Even more so, fathers.

Obviously, the girls are making their own decisions. Should they be? If no, who shall influence them the most?

A father has NO influence over his daughter, NONE, NEVER. Society has NOT changed in the past 100 years the only thing that had changed is the legislative allowance of preexisting memes, those of FEMININE SUPERIORITY and UNACCOUNTABILITY TO MALES. Even the bible says it is the role of older women to teach the younger ones, for precisely the reason that even thousands of years ago WOMEN DID NOT AND DO NOT LISTEN TO MEN.

A father does this, a father does that you are like a fucking broken record.

For the past 5,000 years or so, women were taught and shamed and exalted and encouraged by the Great Books and World’s Mythologies to not act on their baser natures and act upon every gina and butt tingle.

The dimmer Neoconths and aging manginas thus concluded that women were naturally chaste and good, as that is how they remembered their grandmothers, who were never butthexted, desouled, and bernankified like today’s women are.

Even C.S. Lewis had it wrong about women, and thus never grasped the deeper soul of the Old and New Testaments.

@Feminist Hater says:
July 22, 2012 at 5:01 pm
You’re forgetting Hope and Stephenie Rowling, who say (paraphrased) that “men who have experience are disgusting to me, I find those without sexual experience attractive” … eventhough they are married and by those statements are pointing out that their marriages don’t seem to have stopped the idea of “looking for a bigger, better deal”.
Why is it that the women of the manosphere that talk about good values from men … are always in an existing relationship, or “past it” by other mens’ consideration?

yes–when men had power
they used it to exalt
their daughters
and their wives
to protect
their sisters and their daughters
to honor
their mothers and their wives

now that womenz have da power
they use it to partake in and perform porn
to publish buttcockers like tucker max rhymes with goldman sax
to destroy and debuach and deconstruct the great books of western civilization
to cuckhold honorable men and cockhold douchebag betas
to transfer wealth from good men
to da central bankers and their divorce lawyers

lzoozozozozoozz

and so you see
why bernakenaake
funded da fmeinsit movement
to move cash
from men to da banks who create but debt
do dumb their sones down and drug tem up
to slut up the daughterz
and turn a man’s wife and daughterz
agisnt him
as dey celereate tucekr max rheyems iwth godlman sax
secrtely taping dsodoomy sodomy
and sell it to the public and say
“this is what it takes to be an alpha. serve us with secrteiev tapings of sosodomy, and we will make you da saar of tehr world. we will make you six feet tall in the pages of the enoetchcocnths weekly standadth.”

as fifty million are aborted
and good men are sent to die
to bring fmeinsims baby-killing feminisms
to all the peopel of the worldz
lzozozlooz

I get that all the time, really. “Oh, you’re so lucky you have a girl.” No, I’m not. I have friends who have sons the exact same age as my daughter, and there’s very little difference between what I have to go through and what they do. As they get older, each gender presents its’ own difficulties, but I can say I’d be just as worried about keeping a son in check as I am about my daughter. They would both be after the same thing, just going about it in different ways.

I can also say that given the way I was raised, I’m kinda glad it went down the way it did, because there’s very little that my kid will be able to get past me. I know all the tricks, so to speak. And I definitely will NOT be my daughter’s “best friend.” I’ve heard that, too, from parents my own age, and it always pisses me off. If someone is concerned about being their child’s friend, then they aren’t going to enforce anything or step in and act when their child is actively screwing up. You could say I’m trying to everything my mom didn’t do, and vice versa.

@GBFMEven C.S. Lewis had it wrong about women, and thus never grasped the deeper soul of the Old and New Testaments.

It’s funny you mention CS Lewis because I have just finished reading The Magician’s Nephew to my children, and he really was a bit of a White Knight at times, wasn’t he? Polly is just the smartest cookie ever, and it ends up being Diggory who commits the sin of speaking the Deplorable Word; he makes Diggory into Eve, basically.

C.S. Lewis wrote: “A society in which conjugal infidelity is tolerated must always be in the long run a society adverse to women. Women, whatever a few male songs and satires may say to the contrary, are more naturally monogamous than men (C.S. Lewis obviously never read Sperm Wars where he would have learned that women love being fought over not only on the playground, but deep within their cervix–a battlefield where millions of sperm die, while but one lives); it is a biological necessity (lzozozlz C.S. Lewis speaking of biology is like my dog talking about quantum physics & C.S. Lewis obviously never went on a spring break to Cancun, nor lived in a dorm). Where promiscuity prevails, they will therefore always be more often the victims than the culprits (Wait a second, if a woman accepts a cock in her gina, how is da gina innocent and the cock a criminal? I thought that bearing false witness was unchristian?). Also, domestic happiness is more necessary to them than to us (lzozoozlzozlzzlzll yes back before they were buttcocked by elvis’s pelvis! Fact: 75%-90% of divorces are initiated by women, who are given a financial incentive to do so). And the quality by which they most easily hold a man, their beauty, decreases every year after they have come to maturity, but this does not happen to those qualities of personality—women don’t care twopence about our looks (back when they were trained not to act on their gina and butt tinglezlzozlzozlzoz to lust after undead makeup-wearing vampires in twilight)—by which we hold women (but today men are taught to concentrate on their abs and looks more and more, as Men’s Health and Details scoff at and ignore the Great Books and Classics). Thus in the ruthless war of promiscuity women are at a double disadvantage (C.S. Lewis misspelled “advantage”). They play for higher stakes and are also more likely to lose (C.S. Lewis was spared knowledge of the modern divorce-industrial complex and the abortion industry, in which 50,000,000 unborn have also lost–each and every single one of them sent to death by. a. woman’s. choice.). I have no sympathy with moralists who frown at the increasing crudity of female provacativeness (So you can see you C.S. Lewis was one of the first to scoff at the Godlike, Thundering Morality of Moses and Jesus, and one can see, were Jesus around today, good old Clive Staples would be pounding the nails himself). These signs of desparate competition fill me with pity (and the world with broken families, and fatherless children, who, statistically-speaking, have far higher incidences of mental illnesses and afflictions, which further serve to grow the wealth-transferring, liberty-eroding feminist-fanboy-fiatocracy state, which, as you can see, was spawned in large part by C.S. Lewis’s ignorance of classical literature and female nature and his supreme detestation of classical, exalted, noble commonsense morality).”

“p. 152 – “The crowd and the dance round Aslan (for it had become a dance once more) grew so thick and rapid that Lucy was confused. She never saw where certain other people came from who were soon capering among the trees. One was a youth, dressed only in a fawn-skin, with vine-leaves wreathed in his curly hair. His face would have been almost too pretty for a boy’s, if it had not looked so extremely wild. You felt, as Edmund said when he saw him a few days later, ‘There’s a chap who might do anything — absolutely anything (even butthext! yay!).’ He seemed to have a great many names — Bromios, Bassareus, and the Ram, were three of them. There were a lot of girls with him, as wild as he. There was even, unexpectedly, someone on a donkey. And everybody was laughing: and everybody was shouting out, “Euan, euan, eu-oi-oi-oi.” [Emphasis added.]

Note the wild dance, the extremely wild faced youth that is Bromios (otherwise known and Dionysus or Bacchus), the wild girls (Maenads), the man on the donkey (Silenus) who is also said to cry “Refreshments!” (which in the context of Dionysus would be wine), and the cries of “Euoi!”. What Lewis is describing here is nothing other than a Bacchanalian orgy!”

in Prince Caspian, C.S. Lewis celebrates everything the PUA community knows! But unlike Chirst and Moses, he does not pass judgement on it!

C.S. Lewis celebrates:
1. hypergammy
2. doing anything
3. getting rammed by da bro bromios lzozzoz (C.S. Lewis was a bro yo!)
4. celebrating good christian women getting inseminated by the ram, so they can go home to their good christian slave husbands, who will pay and labor for the spawn of other men.
5. note that Aslan (C.S. Lewis’s “beastiality jesus” is at the center of the insemination of the women by the badbor bro ram lzozozozozozo)

is there any doubt, in anyone’s mind, why your daughters are whores and your sons all strive to be bros and ramming thugs who would do anying (even butthext! yaya!)? it’s because of what c.s. lewis taught them! lzozolzoz

“p. 152 – “The crowd and the dance round Aslan (for it had become a dance once more) grew so thick and rapid that Lucy was confused. She never saw where certain other people came from who were soon capering among the trees. One was a youth, dressed only in a fawn-skin, with vine-leaves wreathed in his curly hair. His face would have been almost too pretty for a boy’s, if it had not looked so extremely wild. You felt, as Edmund said when he saw him a few days later, ‘There’s a chap who might do anything — absolutely anything (even butthext! yay!).’ He seemed to have a great many names — Bromios, Bassareus, and the Ram, were three of them. There were a lot of girls with him, as wild as he. There was even, unexpectedly, someone on a donkey. And everybody was laughing: and everybody was shouting out, “Euan, euan, eu-oi-oi-oi.” [Emphasis added.]

OK now, we’re getting off topic, but of course I agree that the Chronicles of Narnia is not to be taken as theology. The universalism in the Last Battle, in which Aslan says that true follows of Tash were really his followers, pretty well shuts that door.

What was the source for all those other CSL quotes about women, please?

The universalism in the Last Battle, in which Aslan says that true follows of Tash were really his followers….

Ummmm….. not quite. Aslan said that those who lived righteously, thinking they were serving Tash, actually served Him without realizing it. And likewise, those who did evil in Aslan’s name, were really serving Tash.

A good scriptural case can be made for the proposition that those who *honestly don’t know* the whole truth, but live conscientiously according to what they *do* know, can be saved. That is NOT “universalism”, it is simply a recognition that not everyone who desires the truth, knows it.

…it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) Romans 2:13-14

if you really don’t want to bastardize christianity
you’ve kinda gotta agree with jesus in matthew
that people ought be judged
by what they did
and not what they said and professed
nor what country clubs they were frogiven in by false prophets selling indulgences to profit off da sinnerz indulgences zlzlzlzl
lzozzlzoz

Anyway, those here who are arguing that female sexuality is inherently sinister and subversive are wrong. It is no more sinister or subversive than male sexuality. Sexuality is what it is – neutral, nature, a biological drive to reproduce our DNA. Where you see sinister and subversive forms of sexuality that does not speak to the nature of sexuality, it speaks to something wrong in the character or brain (probably both since brain science says they are related) of the individual.

well who are you goona beleive?
homer and da biblical propehets and da hindus and sun ztztsus and great books of by and for menz?
or Strawberry Fields Forever & da womenz who publish and promote tucker max butthexter
?

In thirty years, “Even Grandma had premarital sex, survey finds,” will read, “Even Grandma had four threesomes and three secretly-taped buttehxting sessions, in addition to too many men to count, survey finds, and that is why she is the grandmother of cats.” lzozozoz

Blaming women’s actions on external forces is convenient for a beta boy daddy who refuses to believehis daughter is getting gangbanged at college. And the beta boy husband who has to live with the fact his ‘wife’ was spread by every bartender in the city.

Conspiracy theories and magical thinking are comforting for those too mentally weak to believe their ‘beloved’ might just be a shameless whore who is using you, your daughter too.

Don’t look now, but you’re treading very close to the idea that men need to be more assertive in engaging the truth. Another way of saying this might be to man-up to the truth. This is very different than manning-up and marrying the sluts, because part of engaging the truth is accepting that sluts will almost always remain sluts, i.e., a bad investment.

This is the remarkable disconnect of too many of the Manosphere’s commenters:

1. The recognition that women are ruled by rationalization hamsters, and are thus not able to steer themselves into clear waters
2. That supplicating husbands and fathers are fully complicit in allowing women to become and remain feral by overlooking, and outright whitewashing women’s sexual behavior; hypergamy, preference of LTRs, etc.
3. Recognition that game (that is, behaving in a more masculine way, real or caricaturized[women often not being able to tell the difference]) gets players all the women in all the positions they could ever want.

But try to tell someone that they need to up their game–not only need to but CAN–, and the house comes down in fits of wailing about how poor and oppressed men are. To which I say…

“So?”

It sucks to be in the rebellion because the empire is where the fun and the money are. THAT’S WHY WE’RE HAVING A REBELLION!

@GBFM

I’m sure you’re having fun, but the truth is that you and I–from what I can extract, and I’ve been reading your comments for a few years now–are very close in agreement about the state of things. Even so, you have a tendency to ruin blogs with your incessant posts. You choke out all the other comments.

I’m sure you’re having fun, but the truth is that you and I–from what I can extract, and I’ve been reading your comments for a few minutes now–are very far apart in agreement about the state of things. Even so, you have a tendency to ruin blogs with your insipid posts. You choke your chicken in public.

The best of this is found in George Gilder’s theory of civilisation coming about because men are bent to the long-term reproductive horizons of women. The fallacy is eviscerated in a chapter of the Garbage Generation.

“those here who are arguing that female sexuality is inherently sinister and subversive are wrong. It is no more sinister or subversive than male sexuality. ”

It might be not be the two Ss, but it’s more complicated than male sexuality, for the lack of a better word. Lack of a potent drug like viagra, lesbians and their sexuality being far less of a clear-cut case than male homosexuality, the cases of hysterical women in the past.
In Weininger’s Sex and Character, he argued that differentiation of sexuality in sexes from their bodies is the most primary sexual difference, present since birth.
Women being informed(relative to men) by the media is not wrong, the female plasticity regarding sexuality has been discussed in Roy Baumeister’s paper.

“Our clothing choices ARE informed by culture and media.”

However, when you have given freedom to women and they go on to become whores rather than madonnas, and in stark contrast to societies with patriarchal values, it’s hard to not see Gilder’s fallacy.
They made their choice.

“not only did men curtail women’s sexuality but women curtailed younger womens sexuality because most women want”

is resources from men. Briffault’s Law in action.
And again Baumeister’s paper, the Cultural Suppression of Female Sexuality
puts the regulation of female sexuality as much more female-oriented and not by men. Not surprisingly it fluttered many feminists feathers.

Then it’s absolutely heartless of you to upbraid them as enablers. You cat’t have it both ways. One minute stupid men are the power behind the queen’s throne, the next they’re impotent slaves. This is why you are (rightly) compared to feminists; because one minute they were oppressed for all human history, the next they were the real influences of every good change, ever.

It’s true that the legal power unequivocally resides in the hands of women. Men put it there. Women didn’t give themselves the right to vote. Men did. Women didn’t allow themselves into all boys’ schools. Men did. Women didn’t insert themselves into the military. Men brought them in.

This is the very foundation of the very proper criticism against so-cons: They chose to believe– against all contrary evidence–in the natural goodness of women; especially as contrasted with men. What could go wrong? Now we know the answer: everything.

In general, these are very confused times we live in. Men are effeminate pacifists who think someone should just solve their problems for them,, and women who won’t dare give up the moxie..and they never will: The whore has the bit in her teeth. Control must be wrested back.

Not really. Its only heartless if you believe man are not capable of more, I’m reminded of a quote in fact:

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

Not really. Its only heartless if you believe man are not capable of more[…]</blockquote]

And you don't. You said men are powerless.

You keep quoting these works revered by socialists and communists, and I keep being unmoved. OF COURSE socialists are going to reduce every history to class struggles. They must, else they find themselves not only actually in destructive error, but perceived as such, as well.

You're a confessed pacifist, with socialist/communist sympathies and solutions (men can't fix it, women can't fix it, but it must be fixed, so we need to create a bureaucracy to fix it for us), and you wonder why people compare you to feminists. After all: It's not like there's a connection between Marxism and feminism…

A voice for men discussed this very issue two months ago. I urge you to look up the article entitled “MRM Marxism” if you want to elaborate on that issue. You are more than welcome to assume I follow whatever ideology you like, I will respond up until the point that it becomes the sole response. (IE: Simply calling me a feminist and writing a diatribe as to why). I understand you are likely an American, and likely socialized in a system that believes certain things are bad and without any merit at all. You are probably not surprised to know that I am not American, I am also heavily read in the works of feminism, marxism, capitalism, and any number of other ideologies that exist today. I am not so naive to think that nothing can be gained from ‘knowing all sides’.

As to the men are powerless response: You were incorrect in your first statement when you told me I believed that “One minute stupid men are the power behind the queen’s throne” there is a big difference between power and utility, it would be useful for you to familiarize yourself with these terms and their specific semantics.

Feminist Hater, yes. I have said this numerous times. I don’t want to upset women who used to be sluts and have genuinely reformed. But men have to stop accepting non-virgins as wives. If she wants to be a slut, let her be a slut. If she wants to wear white, let her keep her virginity for her husband. Simple.

Marriage is so dangerous for men these days, and women have so little to offer. The very least they can do is present themselves as virgins.

What do they expect men to do? “Here is your bride. She has miles of cock on the clock. She is a feminist. She doesn’t know how to cook or iron or anything like that.” Gee, what a bargain …

I understand you are likely an American, and likely socialized in a system that believes certain things are bad and without any merit at all […] there is a big difference between power and utility, it would be useful for you to familiarize yourself with these terms and their specific semantics.

The difference is free will. If a thing has utility, and a self will, then it has some measure of power. I included your socialized comment above because it displays I reject your your view. Your gist is that I’m not only subject to, but subsumed into, an “American system” of thought, as are you to your European (Italian?) system of thought.* No: Whatever your ideology is, you chose it; especially at your measure of intelligence. Are we influenced by our surroundings, and biology? Absolutely, but in the end the choices are our own.

I read about half of the a voice for men post on MRM marxism. Enough of that was useless to me that I stopped.

*Naturally, you make the case for your superior European breadth of knowledge across many ideas, as opposed to our lonely American one.

You’ve noticed it on this blog that all the female commentators that are so into the mra and traditional christianity are just former carousel riders too eh?

Yes.

From the Christian perspective, I think that as long as the fruit shows that the conversion is real we have to accept the unfairness in light of the mercy that has been shown us. See: The older brother in the parable of the Prodigal Son, and the parable of The Laborers in the Vineyard. This is one of the hardest lessons for me to accept, but without its truth we are all lost.

I know. Preaching to the choir hear. One thing that resonates out of all of this to me is the mistaken notion that if it weren’t for men, or some other influence probably run by men, that women would not sin. How often have I/we heard of the justifications for a woman’s bad behaviour. If men do the same thing, we aren’t owning it. Everyone has their examples.

I’d like to address two things here. First, a bit of a generalization. Much is made about the weakness of Adam. However, if in fact women’s sin is mans fault, how is it that Eve, of her own accord, was the first to sin? We cannot know what would have happened had Adam not responded to her invitation. Perhaps he would have been left alone as she was cast out.

More to the point of the story, sin does not exist without temptation. Anything that can be pointed to as influencing anyone toward sin is temptation. Was not Jesus tempted? What his response? To rebuke the temptation. While I believe it is helpful to identify the temptation (the pretty woman getting the hot guy, the book providing an environment of sexual delight, even some of the promises from the pulpit), just the fact that a temptation exists does not give anyone the right to declare a pass.

In my mind, it is all very simple. Culture may be complex but our response, regardless of gender, is clear. Don’t give in to temptation. That is a burden we all bear, and one for which we will be held to account on an individual basis.

@Feminst Hater – my comments are directed at you, and not at any other commenters

I thought and thought about whether or not I wanted to respond to what you wrote way up thread, and I decided that I do want to. Your words to me were harsh (and also somewhat inaccurate on the details), but I’ve had conversations with you before, and I genuinely believe that you are aggrieved by women’s stupid choices because you care about them more than actually hating them per se.

I had been having a conversation with dalrock when I wrote what you objected to. One mistake on my part is to forget how many silent readers there are on this blog. Sometimes when one is having an interesting conversation, it feels like you’re sitting in a crowded coffee shop; there are other people around, but they aren’t listening to your conversation. Of course, that is inaccurate; in reality, it’s more like having a conversation with someone while sitting on a stage in front of a large audience. Therefore, in one of my comments, I was vague in something I said, which led you to conclude:

It boils down to letting them experiment in school and college or otherwise they will never learn to be a ‘good girl’. Basically it’s this, “No one stopped me rebelling so I sucked many dicks and was fucked every night like a regular whore. But at least I understand that it was ‘rebellion’ and not ‘lust’ on my part…” And of course they weren’t Christian at that point, so it’s all excused and they must still be allowed to marry.

I don’t really need to defend myself, but in the interest of trying to educate non-commenting women, I want to respond. First, in my particular case…I’m older than you think (I’m in my early forties), so the hook-up culture was in its infancy when I was in college. It was nothing like it is today. I graduated from high school a virgin and got married by the end of my senior year in college. I had a couple of LTRs in between. My N is much lower than what you are assuming – no carousel-riding occurred. This is true of a lot of women my age who did not wait until they were in their thirties to marry. Also, you know that 95% of Americans are not virgins when they marry, so although I agree that virginity is an excellent thing which I hope will become more common, the reality is that if someone wishes to marry at the present time, there is very little chance that either they or their spouse will be virgins.

I don’t excuse my sin, which was made up of both lust and rebellion. I’m ashamed of my sin, but I’ve never hidden it here; within one week of beginning to comment, I had revealed that my husband (whom I met in college and who has a much higher N than I have) and I were not virgins on our wedding night because the idea of being so had never occurred to either of us, as we were not brought up in religious homes. I never even thought much about the issue of chastity until I was saved at age 30. Part of the work that I want to do is educate young women to value their chastity; I’m mostly concerned about young Christian women because they should know better but behave as if they don’t. I hope girls won’t follow my example of having sex before marriage. It is always the wrong choice, for all women, in all places, at all times, in every situation and the consequences may be very serious. Let me say it as clearly as possible to any female readers – if you are a virgin, stay that way! If you are sexually active and not married, stop at once.

The fact that I regret not being a virgin on my wedding night should serve as warning to other girls, not as encouragement. And I agree with the commenter who said men should feel free not to marry non-virgins. If enough men do so, virginity will become more common. Also, If you read comments on my own blog, you will see that I say repeatedly that one of the biggest things I’ve learned in my few months in the manosphere is how lucky and undeserving I am to have my husband and how I really want to work even harder at serving his interests.

To me there is absolutely no difference to what SSM did and what all the other women coming on here who promote the idea of delayed marriage and experimentation to ‘discover’ their true selves do. Same bull different day.

I did not delay marriage, and I strongly recommend that college-aged women do their best to find husbands as quickly as possible. I hope my own girls will marry in their late teens or early twenties, as I did. I don’t want women to discover their “true” selves outside of Christ; their true selves are utterly depraved (in the theological meaning of the word “depraved”). Also, I am the most anti-divorce person you will ever meet. My own blog confirms this, as do most of my comments here. I believe women are responsible for the current slut culture and for the divorce epidemic. I am here because I want to figure out how to influence girls and women around me to avoid being sluts and divorcees, not because I want to encourage women to engage in sin and then pull the get-out-of-jail free card by saying they’ve become Christians.

Where were the evil men aiming guns at them to force them to do that? I just couldn’t watch more than a few seconds of that video, so I might not have gotten to the part where they were shown.

But, we know that the must have been there, somewhere. Little girls wouldn’t just dance that way because they liked doing it, would they? Their mothers wouldn’t encourage such behaviors, would they? So, the only possible explanation for this is that evil men were behind it. Right?

Dance Mom’s isn’t a breakaway TV hit because anyone was concerned about what the girl’s fathers opinions were about their wives and daughter’s involvement. If you ever wondered what a world entirely devoid of male influence would look like, watch an episode of Dance Mom’s.

Here’s my take on the “innocence” levels of the average American woman.

July 2: I met a drinking age woman on a college campus. We hit it off, I invite her to Coney Island for Independence Day.

July 4: We met up at the Cyclone. A few minutes later, we walked to the Boardwalk. She removed her T-shirt. On the top of her breast, she had a Tattoo that read, “Sweet Meat”. Barely visible above her jeans, she had a tattoo that read, “Dat Good Good”. For the next two hours, she fended off and ignored close to 30 blatant come-ons, catcalls and attempts to touch. When the date was over (literally over, as I’d removed her name and number from my phone as soon as she wasn’t looking), she told me that she liked me because I was “respectful”. I told her, “You have two of the most sexual tattoos that I’ve ever seen on a woman. Why would you expect anyone to respect you when you’re literally advertising your sexuality without qualifiers?” She made some comments about people not being able to look past images, not being able to see others for their inner beauty. I said, “If I took half a Cialis or Levitra tablet and walked around all day wearing my tightest pair of jeans and a visible erection, no one would be in my corner telling me that I’m just ‘expressing myself’, that I’m just ‘enjoying my sexuality’, even though a man’s penis is a major signifier of his sexuality. But, I and everyone else is supposed to see the real you when your body has written instructions to be regarded through lustful screens?” She tried to say something and I interrupted, “Again, if I took a boner pill right now and walked around while making my penis as noticeable as possible, do you think that anyone’s first thoughts about me would involve my dogtags, military stance or my 100+credits?” She shook her head. I said, “Right. I’d be ‘the black guy who’s waving his d*ck around in public. And if any female or gay male walked up to me and commented on it, no matter how crass or lewd or ‘harassing’ their commentary, no one would give me any sympathy.” She nodded, then took her train. A minute later, I took a different train.

We will be seeing each other on campus in September. I’ll see if she took anything to heart.

@David CollardWhat do they expect men to do? “Here is your bride. She has miles of cock on the clock. She is a feminist. She doesn’t know how to cook or iron or anything like that.” Gee, what a bargain …
It’s not as if she’s going to be honest regarding that:
There’s a 3fold defence:
1. Only bad men want to know whether a girl is a virgin.
2. Men who have “stared at women with lust in their heart”(therefore, all men) don’t deserve an answer to that question
3. Be grateful she even wants to be with you!

P Ray, that has been the reaction I have gotten as well. When the inevitable question comes around about where the good men are, I just jump in with, “are you a virgin?”. Oh my, the stares you get are something else.

“Don’t ask such questions, vile man you! You have no right to know such things. Didn’t your parents teach you any manners! That is not how you treat a lady! A man has no right to expect a woman to be a virgin in this day and age.”

I’ve started to be very blunt with women now. I ask them straight up if they are willing to do a ‘virgin test’ or not. That’s if I actually start to develop a relationship with them, usually third or fourth date I will ask them. Ain’t going to force one on them, but I’m sure not going to marry one that doesn’t pass. If they answer ‘yes’, which none have so far, I will continue to date them and see where it goes. All have answered ‘no’ though, with much the same excuse that a man cannot even suggest such a thing to a modern woman. After that, the date is pretty much over and I delete their number. I have also heard other excuses, such as they play sport and therefore it’s torn already and such and such. I tell them straight up that I understand that might be true but the risk is too great to trust them and end it there and then.

“Marriage is so dangerous for men these days, and women have so little to offer. The very least they can do is present themselves as virgins.”

LOL!

when i said the same, and that it could only work under a biblical context, and that post-pubescent girls should be removed (married) from the SMP a.s.a.p, (to everyone’s benefit, not just theirs) and that women should be silent about these and related socio-spiritual matters (lest Their Will continue to Be Done, as it is now), the Grrls gathered together to kick my ass

and YOU were the FIRST WhiteKnight to jump onto the dogpile! :O)

and everybody else either jumped on too, or sat mute with their hands on their shrivelled dicks

way back in the ancient world a few weeks ago fails yr memory, does it?

slwerner:

“Where were the evil men aiming guns at them to force them to do that? I just couldn’t watch more than a few seconds of that video, so I might not have gotten to the part where they were shown.”

a few seconds is plenty enuf, in most jurisdictions in western nations, to arrest, prosecute, and imprison you for child pornography

THEN you will witness all the men-with-guns you can handle, but they wont be forcing females to do anything, thats for sure

given that yr wife is a Prosecutor, i would have guessed that you’d already be v familiar with these issues . . . doesnt she come home in the evenings, after a justice-filled day of putting males in cages, to relate how she stomped, terrified, and prosecuted-to-fullest-extent yet another evil male who took advantage of our innocent, truth-telling, nonmanipulative females?

of course, as i was informed prior, only the Criminals and Abusers (like me!) need be concerned about such matters . . . not the Good Men like you

hey where are this site’s leaders, suz and antigirl and jacqui and the krew? not around? well, guess their work has already been done, while the roosters strutted thru the barnyard

“It might be not be the two Ss, but it’s more complicated than male sexuality, for the lack of a better word. Lack of a potent drug like viagra, lesbians and their sexuality being far less of a clear-cut case than male homosexuality”

You are speaking to “female sexual fluidity” which is a modern western construct based upon research conducted on women and men from modern, western, hetero-social cultures. The same type of research when conducted on women and men from sex segregated homo-social cultures show that male sexuality is just as fluid, with male on male action amongst otherwise heterosexual identified males being not uncommon. After these men get married the heterosexual activity ceases for some but continues for others. It is seen as purely sexual, not relational, and that is why many of these men profess to be anti-gay whilst simultaneously engaging in heterosexual activity.

“In Weininger’s Sex and Character, he argued that differentiation of sexuality in sexes from their bodies is the most primary sexual difference, present since birth.
Women being informed(relative to men) by the media is not wrong, the female plasticity regarding sexuality has been discussed in Roy Baumeister’s paper.”

See above.

“the cases of hysteria in the past”

A pseudo science based on anglo culture’s ignorance about the female clitoral orgasm during a time when masturbation was stigmatized and considered sinful and clitoral stimulation either manually or orally from husbands was in short supply because it was not a cultural norm and considered “deviancy”. So in order to get their bean off women had to pay “doctors” to bring the orgasmic goods, all under a sanitized cloak of a “medical condition”. Of course this is not longer the case in anglo culture, the female orgasm has been fully unleased. However you might be surprised that a few “doctors” are still doing this in one particular area of the world that I know of, and right here in our own Frisco backyard we have ONE TASTE, which aims at providing orgasms on the go in under 5 minutes for women. Yes, both men and women can become sexually frustrated when not satisfied, who knew?

“not only did men curtail women’s sexuality but women curtailed younger womens sexuality”

They still do, in sex segregated homo-social cultures.

”And again Baumeister’s paper, the Cultural Suppression of Female Sexuality
puts the regulation of female sexuality as much more female-oriented and not by men. Not surprisingly it fluttered many feminists feathers.”

That’s because the feminists we are familiar with rarely travel and conduct research East of Bulgaria. In homosocial cultures women culturally police women more than men do.

So what’s the solution, ban the tampon? Seems some of you want to institute the sex segregation of homosocial cultures we find East of Bulgaria without understanding the implications of such, some of which are outlined in my comment above. Those cultures are far more tolerant of bromance than most Anglo-European cultures and homosexual activity on the downlow is not uncommon until marriage, sometimes after because of habit. The way to avoid all this might be to marry your kids off by puberty, which some rural cultures still do. How does that sound to you? What type of society would the United States be if we arranged our kids marriages at puberty and segregated the sexes outside of family?

SBFF, have a culture that promotes virginity. Marriage before college and life long union. Pretty much what my parents grew up in. After I’ve done my stint in Cape Town, liberal city that it is, I’ll go back up north and find a real woman.

Also, use a pad. It’s not as if the tampon has been around for eons anyway.

Was the USA plagued by homosexuality, out of control female promiscuity, bastardy, divorce, low birth rates, 100 years ago? I recently found an old book that belonged to my great grandmother, (who always lived in the US but who was German speaking). Die Hausfrau nach Gottes Herzen, copyright 1904.

These people who say imposing the standards that used to be imposed in Western society leads to Turkey and Greece really get on my nerves. If anything the homos are using the advance of the “anything goes” licentiousness as a means to advancing their agenda.

In 50 years we’ve gone from a significant fraction of young women being virgins until their wedding (a large fraction being only with their husbands their entire lives) to a very very small percentage. And to countenance this state of affairs we hear it being said that unless women are allowed to act like harlots men will be homosexual. Since a large fraction of men are being shut out this hardly follows. It’s a very convenient rationalization though. Whenever “Christians” want to defend the destruction of their own culture they start talking about how they don’t want to be like the bad Muslims. How about emulating our ancestors? Were they Muslims? Can people talk like they’re not hooked on the prole-feed delivered by the Grand Old Zionist Party?

” Whenever “Christians” want to defend the destruction of their own culture they start talking about how they don’t want to be like the bad Muslims. How about emulating our ancestors? Were they Muslims? Can people talk like they’re not hooked on the prole-feed delivered by the Grand Old Zionist Party?”

Joe, it has nothing to do with religion. There are plenty of other religions besides Islam East of Bulgaria and their homsocial cultures have the same dynamics going on, including Christians.

“SBFF, have a culture that promotes virginity. Marriage before college and life long union. Pretty much what my parents grew up in. After I’ve done my stint in Cape Town, liberal city that it is, I’ll go back up north and find a real woman.”

I’ll buy that. However keep in mind that women were just as picky, if not more so back then as they are now.

“Also, use a pad. It’s not as if the tampon has been around for eons anyway.”

SBFF, picky in what? Are you saying women wanted male virgins back then? If so, great I welcome that and as a Christian, I have zero problem with placing that burden on male Christians, since they indeed seem to follow through. Or are you saying that women were more picky with respect to male looks than they are now? If so, I find that hard to believe. Most women are so picky these days, with respect to what a man should be, that they are making huge amounts of money selling fantasy books of perfect men because women have no hope in hell in finding such a guy in reality. More marriages happened in the past, far less failed and society was better. I’ll have to call your premise bullshit.

Only virgins can wear white on the wedding day, others should stick to black or blue, or perhaps pink…

Wow, now we’re on to ‘Utopia’? Are you a cultural marxist by anychance? Believing that no culture is above another? Utter bull. Western Culture before 1950s was a good balance of how things can really work. I’m not, nor will I ever accept today’s culture because of your stupid ‘bromance’ argument. Gays have been a small percentage of populations and continue to be so. Ancient Greeks might have dabbled in it but that was because they were away at war for years at a time. Any sex before marriage is sin, non-debatable for a Christian. In a Christian society, there is no ‘trade off’. Be a virgin or don’t wear white.

The risk to wearing a tampon or playing a sport is tearing your hymen. This in turn will cause you to fail a ‘virgin test’. Weigh up your ‘pros and cons’ or make a new ‘virgin test’.

Your pitiful attempts to get men to accept damaged goods is of no concern to me.

” However keep in mind that women were just as picky, if not more so back then as they are now.”

No, they were not. If they were getting married in their early 20s and not their early 30s then they were pairing off with the general population, hoping to get someone in their league. They were marrying guys they wouldn’t look at twice during their prime years these days. I have no doubt about that whatsoever.

Most women, deep down, no matter whose side they claim to be on, like the current situation. That’s my general impression.

Seems some of you want to institute the sex segregation of homosocial cultures we find East of Bulgaria without understanding the implications of such, some of which are outlined in my comment above. Those cultures are far more tolerant of bromance than most Anglo-European cultures and homosexual activity on the downlow is not uncommon until marriage, sometimes after because of habit.

This is a pretty good example of how higher education is mostly wasted on women. How is it not better for all of us if SFF didn’t know about the mating habits of eastern Bulgarians from which to draw the wrong conclusions?

A large proportion of young men today are essentially “frozen” out of the sexual market. So the idea that past restrictions led to more homosexuality than is happening today is BS. But it’s a great excuse for the harlots and their families.

The harlot hamster says if we go back to the 50s or the 00s boys will turn to sodomy. If women don’t get to ride the carousel they’ll be more likely to commit adultery. If it’s not these excuses it is something else. What they won’t accept, is being held to enforced standards.

When I look on facebook at a good proportion of the women my age, a few are married to handsome men, many of them are married to men who are not so good looking, and most of them aren’t looking so hot either. IMO, they wouldn’t be very attractive to a typical young man, whereas a man my age is easily attractive to a typical 18 year old girl. A lot of these women forfeit the one time when they were really attractive enough to find a mate who is in the same general level of attractiveness. But they will willingly forfeit the opportunity to marry a nice, handsome fellow their own age for the carousel ride. That’s how it is these days.

“This is a pretty good example of how higher education is mostly wasted on women. How is it not better for all of us if SFF didn’t know about the mating habits of eastern Bulgarians from which to draw the wrong conclusions?”

Cane Caldo, wrongo bro. I never went to college. My parent were missionaries and I’ve lived all over the world. Have you ever travelled East of Bulgaria?

Same sex sexual activity is not uncommon in homosocial cultures. It is not considered “gay”, I already explained that. Your miscomprehension is because you are reading everything I write here through your own cultural lense and lack of experience with other cultures.

“The risk to wearing a tampon or playing a sport is tearing your hymen. This in turn will cause you to fail a ‘virgin test’. Weigh up your ‘pros and cons’ or make a new ‘virgin test’. ”

Good morning, I know the topic has progressed beyond our conversation so I will be brief and let the conversation die off.

Indeed the difference is free will, or in specific terms: Agency. Men must at some point face the fact that they have almost no agency. And yet it is because men have been ‘bred to be slaves’ as I say that I am hopeful for the future. As man’s physical superiority, mental superiority, and above all else his sense of justice and intuiition he (we) could surely cast off the slavery in a moments notice. That men do not, is only because the truth is hard to swallow.

On my seemingly anti-american comments: I find America fascinating and inspirational in fact. Above all else what I see in American thought is a overwhelming desire for….simplicity. This is not saying Americans are simple, in fact I would say that the desire for simplicity is what allowed your country to be so unmatched in scientific advancement for the better part of a century. Yes or no, x or y, etc.

That desire for simplicity is not useful in the political and cultural realm, it either manifests itself in the overused ‘american exceptionalism’ and the shining beacon on the hill, or regresses into a nihilistic destroy everything sense that exists in radical feminism, and I would say also in objectivism.

“Romantic love is a modern sentiment, less than a thousand years old. Not till Dante’s Vita Nuova appeared was the gospel of modern love — the romantic adoration of a maiden by a youth — revealed for the first time in definite language. Genius, however, is always in advance of its age, in emotions as well as in thought… It remained for Shakespeare to combine the idealism with the realism of love in proper proportions… Like Dante, however, he was emotionally ahead of his time, as an examination of contemporary literature in England and elsewhere shows. But within the last two centuries love has gradually, if slowly, assumed among all educated people characteristics which formerly it possessed only in the minds of a few isolated men of genius… Romantic love, it is well known, hardly exists in France as a motive to marriage, being systematically suppressed and craftily annihilated. Nevertheless, as many observers attest, the French commonly lead a happy family life.”

MY COMMENT: YES, AND THE FRENCH HAVE BEEN INFAMOUS FOR THEIR EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIRS FOR A VERY, LONG TIME. EVEN TODAY YOU HAVE FRENCH PEOPLE SAYING “AFFAIRS ARE HEALTHY FOR A MARRIAGE”

France is not so different from other European countries as Mr. Finck’s specification of it would imply. In The Lighter Side of Irish Life, “George A. Birmingham” tells us that marriages in Ireland are usually happy, and rarely defiled by unfaithfulness. But they are generally arranged by the families. His explanation is of vast significance in any discussion of marital happiness:

“The probability is that as most of our people marry without romance, so they marry without illusion. The woman accepts wifehood and motherhood as a man accepts his profession, knowing that life is not a rose garden. The man accepts his wife without supposing that he is going to be mated with an angel. Somewhat less is expected in the marriage of arrangement than in the marriage of passion, and therefore, in the great majority of cases, somewhat more is obtained. Into the marriage of passion the man and woman rush with blind eyes, to recover sight afterward, and with sight, too often, disillusion. Into the marriage of arrangement they go with eyes very widely opened, and are, therefore, all the better able to close them afterward when closing is necessary for domestic peace.”

HE’S MAKING A CASE FOR ARRANGED MARRIAGE. HOW DO PEOPLE READING THIS BLOG FEEL ABOUT THAT? ANYONE HERE GAME FOR SUCH?

“Romantic love is a modern sentiment, less than a thousand years old. Not till Dante’s Vita Nuova appeared was the gospel of modern love — the romantic adoration of a maiden by a youth — revealed for the first time in definite language.”

False. Asians had their love stories for millenia before, in “definite language”. But we all get the point and I’d be curious how many here agree with that. Would you be open to having your marriag arranged to someone you don’t know or know very little of? Would you be happy in a lifelong marriage that might not sprout any feelings of romantic affection, much less tingles, and served a solely utilitarian purpose?

Arranged marriages can be very good. Do you trust your parents to do the best for you? Are they able to see more clearly into the character of possible mates, since they are not hampered by hormones and lust?

Where arranged marriages go wrong is where the parents can profit. Take the greed factor out, and they do better than we can pick for ourselves.

A method many used to follow had elements of both arranged and romantic marriage. The parents would vet suitors, and their daughter would choose from the ‘approved’ group. Courting may be old-fashioned, but it worked.

“The risk to wearing a tampon or playing a sport is tearing your hymen. This in turn will cause you to fail a ‘virgin test’. Weigh up your ‘pros and cons’ or make a new ‘virgin test’.”

“And where are these ‘virgin’ tests conducted?”

“Any gynaecologist can conduct a virginity test.”

P Ray, yeah but are they? You gave 1 example. And that too, a prostitute’s test! Feminist Hater said if a woman wears a tampon it will make her fail a virginity test, as if such tests were par for the course in our lives. On the contrary we’ve never heard of them, nor ever planned on taking one, nor was I aware that they were commonly undergone by women. Why? Because they aren’t.

You can wish for women not to use tampons all you like but they ain’t coming off the CVS shelves anytime soon. Moot point.

“Arranged marriages can be very good. Do you trust your parents to do the best for you?”

Since reaching adulthood I’ve not expected my parents to make decisions for me.

“It’s not like there’s a connection between Marxism and feminism”

Now there’s a connection between Marxism and the Mens’ Rights Movement too!

SBFF, never said using a tampon will cause you to fail a ‘virgin test’. It will increase the risk of tearing a woman’s hymen, just like playing sport. It’s that risk mitigation thing again. If a girl ends up tearing her hymen, or is indeed born without one, she will fail a ‘virgin test’.

I don’t care if tampons are still on selves or if the Olympics are full of women teams. I will not marry a woman who is not a virgin. If she fails, no marriage.

Most Doctors know the human anatomy, most know what a hymen looks like and if it is torn. There are many that can see if a woman has had extensive use of her vagina. This is not really a debate, you just want us to accept damaged goods.

There is inevitably a unavoidable test that will happen at the consummation of marriage. Either an intact hymen will be broken or there won’t be one to break. There aren’t consequences like a Canon Law “error of person” that would nullify a marriage as it did in the old days, but to say there’s “no test” is false. Either the bride to be was honest about her history or she was lying. If she’s not intact on the wedding night, one would presume that latter is more likely.

@Strawberry Fields Forever (FFS):
If you’re not in the market to be married,
why are you defending sluts?
Unless your daughter is one,
And you want her to be married off?
Remember: the more sluts in the marriage pool – the greater knock-on costs of disease, mental problems, birth complications and mental healthcare.

You gave 1 example. And that too, a prostitute’s test!
You’re funny. That was a statement to illustrate that you can find the service even in DEVELOPED countries.
You are trying to make out that it is unfair for men to know whether the woman they plan to marry (for it’s not worth the cost to do that for a woman you plan to pump-and-dump: the person committed to play around WILL NOT BOTHER) is a slut.
Any time you are willing to show that you are emotional, use ad hominems or are generally illogical,
is going to do a lot to keep men aware that many such women like you would like to see women go through life unexamined about whether they “pass muster” for fitness to be married.
And that “thou doth protest too much” is a good way to weed out someone trying to scam you.

Cane Caldo, wrongo bro. I never went to college. My parent were missionaries and I’ve lived all over the world. Have you ever travelled East of Bulgaria?

I have. Though college was what I had in mind, it isn’t the only higher education. I stand by my comment. Regardless, I think you’re lying.

You can stop posting that link to AVFM’s MRM and Marxism link. YBM posted it before, and I only read half of it then, and scanned the rest. The author is in denial that feminism is part-and-parcel of Marxism, so the whole treatise is flawed. It’s a short step from Marxism to the MRM; rather, a sideways step. That’s why I’m not interested in it. I’m not interested in men’s rights, but their freedom. Codification is hardly the way to go about it. Women have been ill-served by Title IX, VAWA, etc.

@YBM

In your final analysis, are men powerless or not? My American simplicity demands you make a choice. Yoda and Mr. Miyagi agree.

@SunshineMary, Perhaps it is that our natural bent is more toward rebellion than hyper-sexuality, and it just happens that rebelling against decent sexual mores is the currently preferred method of most women for expressing an unwillingness to obey/submit.

I’d be inclined to agree if the ancients didn’t comment on the same problem more than two thousand years ago. Women are seductresses.

It’s funny you mention CS Lewis because I have just finished reading The Magician’s Nephew to my children, and he really was a bit of a White Knight at times, wasn’t he? Polly is just the smartest cookie ever, and it ends up being Diggory who commits the sin of speaking the Deplorable Word; he makes Diggory into Eve, basically.

I see nothing White Knightish in either Pelelandra or That Hideous Strength.

@VanUmmmm….. not quite. Aslan said that those who lived righteously, thinking they were serving Tash, actually served Him without realizing it. And likewise, those who did evil in Aslan’s name, were really serving Tash.

Yes. Official the Catechism of the Catholic Church calls this “invincible ignorance”. It is not universalism which presupposes that everyone is saved. Remember the Dwarves are consigned to what is effectively Limbo for their refusal to believe in Aslan even though they were otherwise good.

@Cane,But try to tell someone that they need to up their game–not only need to but CAN–, and the house comes down in fits of wailing about how poor and oppressed men are. To which I say…

“So?”

It sucks to be in the rebellion because the empire is where the fun and the money are. THAT’S WHY WE’RE HAVING A REBELLION!

Ha! Too true. “Man up” is actually a good thing. We should. That we fight this is silly. The problem isn’t with “man up” but that we don’t expect women to “woman up”. I’m all for men fighting the tide and becoming more masculine.

@David,Agree with Cane. Yes, I believe that God’s Grace can work in a slut to help her to reform. But also yes, that doesn’t mean a man would be wise to marry such a woman.

It would be like a man who had been a drunk, and overcome his alcoholism by the Grace of God. But a sensible woman might still avoid such a man as a husband. Wisely.

I’m inclined to believe that this should be a general rule but not a hard one. I’d rather not have the entire race collapse because of current social mores.

@Sunshinemary,their true selves are utterly depraved

You are Catholic right? If so why in God’s name are you quoting TULIP and Calvin?

By the way, I wouldn’t mind more info on universalism. From wikipedia, it is: a universal reconciliation between humanity and the divine. That is how I have always understood it, but I am not a theologian by any means…just a housewife. 🙂

Yea, I know the difference between ‘nominal’ and ‘real’, but you went to Church nonetheless. A Catholic Church to boot. You really can’t tell me they didn’t say no sex before marriage. I mean, did they advise you to use a condom or remain abstinent?

Did you miss my post up-thread to you? I’m not trying to justify any past sin. I was not a carousel-riding slut, and I didn’t get a “no-sex” lecture from either my parents or my very-minimal church experiences, but God gives us the ability to understand wrong from right and I’m sure inside that I knew it was wrong. I’ve also affirmed that men should feel free not to marry non-virgins. What more do you want from me?

I don’t want anything from you. I just explained why I’m kinda pissed when I hear about women ‘living it up’ and then still getting married. You said I was being ‘harsh’ and what not and that you didn’t ride the carousel, even though you admit to doing a couple laps, more commonly known as LTRs. Then you go on to explain a whole bunch of stuff about how you want to help women not make the same mistakes, blah blah blah, while basically saying men have pretty much zero chance of marrying a virgin in this day. And then you wonder why men like me are slightly pissed off…

FH – I think I do understand why you are p.o’ed. I’m not happy about the fact that you have a minimal chance of finding a virgin to marry. Pointing out that you have a limited chance of marrying a virgin is just a statement of fact – it’s not an endorsement of slutty behavior. I think you’re confusing me with a different kind of woman; there is the kind of woman who spends years riding the carousel only to become a Christian at 30 and then demand a husband after she’s had scores of other men. That isn’t me; I found a husband when I was very young and still not a Christian (but sadly, also not a virgin). I think it’s reasonable for me to want to point out some of these facts to other (young) women who are risk of making very serious mistakes. If more older, married women such as myself made a point of educating young women on these matters, perhaps there would be more virgins available to decent young men such as yourself.

Stop whining about women not being virgins (or being treated superiorly). Sooner or later you are gonna have to live with the fact you can never have a virgin like someone 50 years ago. You’re an intelligent guy, fuck thinking about women and do your thing man.

No, I believe in the right for every man to keep his balls. Of course virginity matters, I’d have loved to been born in the 1950’s, but right now there is no genuine possible way to force reduce sex before marriage. Not in his lifetime at least. And I agree we have evolved into a bunch of technology-addicted pussies dominated by women.

“Stop whining about women not being virgins (or being treated superiorly). Sooner or later you are gonna have to live with the fact you can never have a virgin like someone 50 years ago. You’re an intelligent guy, fuck thinking about women and do your thing man.”

– Yes just man up!

OR

– Don’t marry. Don’t support an exploitative system that hates you and isn’t even interested in keeping up appearances of justice or fairness. Don’t beat yourself up for not living up to ridiculous expectations of women. Don’t support stupid wars. Don’t support the parasitical upper class thinking “hey i too will be a millionaire someday”. In short you stop being a slave.

Sunshinemary, give it up. No matter what you say you’ll be accused of “defending sluts” simply because you are female.

“If a girl ends up tearing her hymen, or is indeed born without one, she will fail a ‘virgin test’.”

The point is, there is no “virgin test”. Millions of women are not going to gynaecologists to take any such test, not even thousands, not even hundreds. Can you really be this daft?
On the contrary there are many, many pubescent girls, teen girls and even adult women in their 20s who have not had sex yet but do use tampons. They are not going to stop using them because some random commenter on a blog doesn’t want them to. Get over it and move on.

“Of course virginity matters, I’d have loved to been born in the 1950′s, but right now there is no genuine possible way to force reduce sex before marriage.”

If you were born in the 50s you would have come of age in the 60s, the era of LSD, free love and the sexual revolution.

“The 22-year-old was charged with four counts of rape by instrumentation”

What is “instrumentation”?

Another good looking, muscular, young black man with a future ahead of him thrown in the US Prison Industrial complex on what may be a false charge. Its nothing new. Its our history. Look what happened to Emmet Till.

If you were born in the 50s you would have come of age in the 60s, the era of LSD, free love and the sexual revolution.

I see your point, but If you haven’t noticed, even though the 50s was just a random example: the ones born in the 80s-90s are still a shadow of the people born in the 50s. Overall I’d still have a better chance of finding a virgin in the past, rather than today, because of all this decadent shit..

Well SBFF, you’re right of course. I’m totally daft, still believing there are decent women out there. Then I’m reminded that you are actually surrounded by sluts and for men there, pickings are slim to non-existent. Comes a point when a man asks himself if it really is worth it. Honestly, I don’t think so. Only those who follow Christ are worth it to me, and only those of my ethnicity. To the rest, couldn’t really give a damn. American women are lost, not worth the effort, just thank my lucky stars I don’t live there.

@David Collard:I suspect this would still be true. More rural girls, ethnic girls, religious girls, introverted girls …
Nope.
As a matter of fact, the ethnic girls will scream ’til their faces are blue that sex only happens after marriage …
until you observe them step out of the shower with a guy.
Then “Only God can judge me” and
“You have looked upon women with lust in your heart! Thou art a SINNER!”
and “Only creeps care to know about a womans’ sexual past”.

There would be a remnant out there. Small, isolated clusters of bible believing women. Probably resisting the directions from all quarters t a career, learn to self pleasure, and have many sexual partners.

Gbfm put it well. The typical evangelical church encourages the decline of civilisation, with its self esteem for girls and adhd management for boys.

Were i ever single again, i probably would not bother dating. The rise and rise of hypergamy has made women unappealing. Many christians have embraced feminist principles, and will be childless, or divorced, as a direct result.

Feminist Hater, you really think women who use tampons are sluts? Come on man, nobody will take us seriously with that kind of rhetoric.

I think FH has been driven insane by the colliding forces of his civilized mind and the reality of the current socio-sexual marketplace. I don’t mean to be patronizing: I’m sympathetic. It seems like it should be such a simple and beneficial solution for most women to stop being sluts, and yet they don’t.

Then the bitches baitingly ask what should be done about it. Simple, logical, replies are given, but they’re no match for the hamsters who have an unending supply of exceptions and NAWALTs to wheel off. Pretty soon, the simple, civilized, man is raving about tampons. How can he not?

No I don’t think women who use tampons are sluts. What I am saying is that it is too risk to trust a woman whose hymen is broken when she says it was broken by either sport, a visit to the Doctor or a tampon. Read, don’t just assume.

Yea Cane, I actually agree with you on that one. They would rather focus on side issues than actual solutions. In the end, one feels more frustrated in the end. Sometimes I feel like just saying to the women on this forum that since they are all so perfect, brilliant and better than any man who has ever lived, that they can fix their own problems.

Only one thing stops me and that is my faith in God. Otherwise I would be truly done and wouldn’t give much a crap about America or Europe.

@Feminist HaterSometimes I feel like just saying to the women on this forum that since they are all so perfect, brilliant and better than any man who has ever lived, that they can fix their own problems.
That’s what MGTOW is about: Stepping aside to let the brilliant women … fix their own problems.
Since men do such a bad job, let women step up to the plate, and build the huge success they always tell us they were prevented from doing … because they were women.

Red pill men do understand women have a sexual nature and strong sexual desire. It’s just that many, if not most, women feel that sexual desire for men other than their husbands. The reason is not men chasing women out of their leagues; it is the exact opposite.

Here’s Dalrock on this very issue:

“Women do experience a strong desire to have sex, and it has nothing to do with whether she has finished her to-do list. The modern Christian misconception that women generally don’t experience strong sexual desire is a result of Christian wives not keeping their chastity prior to marriage and Christian husbands becoming less dominant and thereby less attractive to their wives (and the wives themselves rebelling). While there are of course medical exceptions, in general if your wife isn’t feeling “hubba hubba” towards you on a regular basis, something is very off. This isn’t just a harmless myth; large numbers of Christian husbands have learned the hard way that their wives do in fact experience strong sexual desires, they just feel them for other men.”

Women do have a strong sexual desire. But men, especially Christian men, are sternly instructed that women want only love and marriage; and that sex is something they simply tolerate for their husbands’ sakes. The truth is that women want sex. They want it very much. It’s just that she wants sex with only the very top men. The destructive power of a woman’s unrestrained sexuality exceeds that of men’s by several orders of magnitude.

You have it backwards. Commerce and the market simply responds to what the market wants. Young women are in total control of the sexual market, and have a lot of the power in terms of consumer spending. Young women’s power in the sexual marketplace is simply immense. They drive it; the media and commerce respond to it.

If you only knewI think that women and men are being driven by commercialized sexuality from Marketers looking to sell their products whether the product are cars, beer, magazines, etc.

While there is some truth to this, it’s blame shifting. The food industry manufactures things for eating that appeal to our taste buds and appetites, but it’s not “commercialized hunger” that makes people fat, it is eating too much sugar and other things. It is not commercialized sexuality that drives women’s sexuality. It is women’s sexuality that drives the market to satisfy them.

It’s good to see that you do understand that women have a sexual nature.